Please help me choose a camera

I don't particularly know much about photography, and while I'm sure I'd play around with some settings, I don't want my cruise (which will be my first) to be centered around photography. I don't want anything heavy or difficult, as we'll be flying to Florida, and I'm not sure whether or not to get a waterproof: do any cheap waterproofs take decent pictures when compared to their non-waterproofed counterparts? We're doing a Carribean cruise and plan on snorkling at one port. While waterproof would be nice for this, it's not necessary if it means sacrificing on image quality on the vast majority of our pictures.

As to budget...It's not really defined, specifically, but as cheap as possible. I think it would probably be hard to justify spending another $200 on a camera (and then having to buy SD cards and such on top of that), though I realize most decent ones are above that price point. On the other hand, I am willing to buy not-completely-up-to-date models, and/or refurbished or used cameras, as we don't need all the extra features like GPS tagging and 3D photography. What should I look for? Thanks in advance.

Look at Cameras in that range from Nikon, Canon, Panasonic and Sony. There should be several in that $200 area. SD cards are cheap now $10-$20 will buy you an 8-16GB card.

For under $200, I really like the Nikon P310.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-NIKKOR/dp/B0073HSH08/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1375930843&sr=1-1&keywords=p310

B&H Photo Video has a great used camera department, I'm a big fan of theirs and get all my cameras from them. I bought a used Sony DSLR camera for about $260 this past spring. I saw lots of point & shoot models for $100-150. Any one of those would probably be right up your alley.

Have you given thought to renting a camera? You can rent something much nicer for the price.

Kari

Waterproof cameras do sacrifice image quality, so if not a priority, I wouldn't get one.

Willingness to go on the used/discontinued market can help quite a bit.

Unfortunately, things like GPS tagging and similar frills come pretty cheap. The most expensive elements of a camera are the components that effect image quality -- lens and sensor.

A good smart phone camera can perform about as well as many sub-$200 point and shoots.

The Nikon p310 mentioned is a good choice in your budget range. Not a great sensor, but the lens is better than most in the price category.

Though I'm not personally a fan of super zooms, the Canon sx260 should be found in that range.

You can get a used Canon s100 in that range -- it's one of the better point and shoots, with a better sensor.

For a big step up in performance and image quality, but still very reasonable price, the Panasonic lx7 is a good choice. Slightly more than your budget --$350 new, can probably get used for $250ish. It would be a big step up from the other cameras being discussed.

Yeah, one of my concerns was whether or not a cheap digital camera would even perform significantly better than a smartphone camera, or at least well enough to justify the price.

On the subject of used/refurbished...is there any reason NOT to get a pretty old DSLR if it falls within my price range? How would an old DSLR compare to a newer point and shoot? And could I learn to use one in less than month? How much of a hassle are they typically to carry around?

Thanks for the replies thus far.

One huge advantage an old DSLR can still have (emphasis on the word can) is if you have a great lens. Lenses can affect the sharpness, contrast, and overall quality of the photo.

If you have a great lens, even a 10yr old DSLR will be superior to the latest compact camera.

Yeah, one of my concerns was whether or not a cheap digital camera would even perform significantly better than a smartphone camera, or at least well enough to justify the price.

 

On the subject of used/refurbished...is there any reason NOT to get a pretty old DSLR if it falls within my price range? How would an old DSLR compare to a newer point and shoot? And could I learn to use one in less than month? How much of a hassle are they typically to carry around?

 

Thanks for the replies thus far.

A used dSLR is a GREAT option. And assuming you don't go back to the stone age (which is about 2002 for dSLRs). In fact, I just upgraded from a Sony A100 last year --- It was a 2006 camera, and it can easily fit in your price range:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800976881-USE/sony_dslra100k_alpha_dslr_a100_digital_camera.html

Cheapest prices will come from ebay, and ebay does offer some buyer protection. But it is still a bit more risky than buying from a reputable seller like B&H.

Let's look at some of the pros and cons of the different cameras that have been mentioned. Remember, that in terms of pure image quality, the most important aspects are sensor size (though newer sensors out perform older generations of sensors), and lens quality (an aperture with a small number is bigger and faster).

For $200, and a new contract, you can get an iPhone 5. Looking at it purely as a camera, it has all the frills -- Instant wifi sharing of photos, GPS tagging, in-camera editing, etc, etc.

The sensor is tiny, but it actually has a decent fixed lens. I believe the aperture is 2.0. For normal size prints in decent light, you actually can get some pretty nice shots.

I rarely use the iphone for photography, but sometimes I have some fun with it, partially because it's so easy to just add effects and editing in the camera:

Untitled by Havoc315, on Flickr

Many cheap P&S cameras will have a sensor that is barely larger than the iphone sensor, with a lens that is no better (or may even be worse). Plus, a cheaper P&S camera has a slow processor (where the iphone is also a powerful computer with a powerful processor). So yes, many cheap P&S cameras are not going to be dramatically better than the iphone. The main thing they may offer that is lacking in the iphone, is optical zoom.

Looking at something like the Nikon P310. It still has the tiny sensor, barely bigger than the iphone. But what sets it apart from most under-$200 cameras --- When the lens is at its widest setting, it has a 1.8 aperture. This is a very fast lens. It will let you get better images in more challenging light, than a slower lens. (the terms fast and slow actually apply to the mount of light entering the camera). It has what I would consider a "normal" zoom range. Where the iphone is a 1x camera, the Nikon P310 is approximately 4x. Thanks to the fast aperture, this lens will start to give you a bit of a true upgrade from a good smart phone.

Next, in a similar price range, I mentioned the Canon S260. A super zoom that is a couple years old now. It still has the tiny sensor. And the lens is slow -- with the fastest aperture range of 3.5 to 6.8. It's image quality isn't going to be much better than a smart phone, but it does have 1 big selling point --- 20x zoom. Of course, when zoomed in all the way, the aperture is a horrible 6.8, so it's really only useful in bright daylight. But at least you have the option. So for someone looking for a massive zoom range, and merely acceptable image quality, this is a good type of camera.

Next I mentioned the Canon S100 --- The "older" model of Canon's P&S enthusiast camera. It now has a lens that is a bit bigger. Still not as big as a dSLR, but bigger than any of the cameras I've mentioned so far. "Normal" zoom range-- about 5x. A fairly fast lens, with a 2.0 aperture at its widest setting. You won't get that massive 20x zoom, but you will certainly get improved image quality thanks to the slightly larger sensor and the fairly fast lens.

Next I mentioned the Panasonic LX7. Same size sensor as the Canon S100 I believe -- so not a massive sensor, but better than typical P&S cameras. And it has a maximum aperture range of 1.4-2.3. That is REALLY fast. It's about a 4x zoom... but even zoomed in, the aperture is 2.3. So at this rung of the ladder, you start to get some pretty darn good image quality, that you can start to compare to dSLRs.

I own the RX100 -- the next rung on the ladder. (I own lots of cameras, lol). It has a 1" sensor -- Which is HUGE for a compact camera. The sensor is about 4 times the size of a typical P&S sensor. It's much bigger than the S100 and LX7 sensor. It is still a bit smaller than a dSLR sensor. It has a 3.6 zoom with a maximum aperture of 1.8. So a very fast lens (though not as fast as the LX7), plus huge sensor, makes for great image quality.

winter-95.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

museumnightrx-49.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-56.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Finally, a dSLR. Most dSLRs that you look at will have a sensor size considered the APS-C sensor. It is massive compared to everything mentioned thus far.

The lens -- it will depend on the lens you get to go with the camera. A basic kit lens will serve you well. And of course, you can upgrade later -- add faster lenses, add lenses with more zoom.

Older dSLR sensors (5+ years old) won't have the same low light ability as the newer dSLRs, or even as good as the RX100... but they will vastly out perform your typical P&S.

And while intimidating to look at -- a dSLR is no harder to use than a P&S. You need to know how to stick in a memory card, charge the battery --- and set the camera to AUTO mode. With all cameras, you will take better photographs if you use some manual settings. But using the AUTO mode on a dSLR is really no different than using the AUTO mode on a P&S.

The main difference -- if you get an older dSLR, you're going to have far fewer frills. You may not even be able to take pictures using the LCD, you may have to use the optical viewfinder. And the AUTO may not be quite as adept as "picking the right scene mode."

For example -- My RX100 -- when in full auto -- tries to correct backlighting by taking and stacking multiple photos. AUTO on my Sony A100 didn't do neat tricks like that.

But for anyone seeking the best possible image quality on a budget of under $300... Assuming they don't care about weight and bulk, my recommendation is a used dSLR.

An example with the Sony A100

Disney world - Everest by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

Looking at something like the Nikon P310. It still has the tiny sensor, barely bigger than the iphone. But what sets it apart from most under-$200 cameras --- When the lens is at its widest setting, it has a 1.8 aperture.

The P310 has the same 1/2.3" sensor size as most compact cameras, with the exception of the Canon S100, G15, Nikon P330, and P7700, and Panasonic LX7 - which all have a 1/1.7" sensor.

Even then, the typical compact camera with a 1/2.3" sensor is 7 times larger in surface area as does the typical smartphone. Still a small sensor, but nowhere nearly as small as a cellphone.

Bridge cameras have slightly smaller sensors (1/2.5") as that is the only way they can get those huge zooms in a small package. There may be an exception or two, but I cannot recall a bridge camera with a sensor larger than 1/2.5".

Typical cell phone sensor; 1/6" - 14x crop factor, 4sq mm sensor size.

Typical compact camera sensor 1/2.5" 6x crop factor, 25 sq mm sensor size.

Typical bridge camera sensor 1/2.5" 6x crop factor, 25 sq mm sensor size.

Nikon P310 sensor 1/2.3" 5.6x crop factor, 28 sq mm sensor size.

Canon S260 sensor 1/2.3" 5.6x crop factor, 28 sq mm sensor size.

Canon S100 sensor 1/1.7" 4.5x crop factor, 43 sq mm sensor size.

Nikon P330 sensor 1/1.7" 4.5x crop factor, 43 sq mm sensor size.

Panasonic LX7 sensor 1/1.7" 4.5x crop factor, 43 sq mm sensor size.

Sony RX-100 sensor 1", 2.7 crop factor, 116 sq mm sensor size.

Nikon 1 (Aptina) sensor 1", 2.7 crop factor, 116 sq mm sensor size.

M4/3 , 2x crop factor, 225 sq mm sensor size.

Canon APS-C DSLR, 1.6x crop factor, 329 sq mm sensor size.

Nikon APS DSLR, 1.5x crop factor, 370 sq mm sensor size.

Sony NEX, 1.5x crop factor, 370 sq mm sensor size.

Full frame DSLR (all), 1.0 crop factor, 864 sq mm sensor size.

Thanks for all the help! The explanations are nice too. :) The smartphone I own is actually an iPhone 5 and I've taken some pretty okay photos with an iPhone, at least for the purposes of viewing on the phone. Still, it's been years since we've had an actual camera, and we no longer have a functioning one (even if we did, it'd be a 5+ year old p&s).

Does a $300 used (not refurbished) Canon Rebel XSi with kit lens seem like a good option? Yes, more than my original budget, but a little easier to justify in a DSLR than a p&s in my mind.

No matter what camera you get, you have that Iphone as your back up. yes you can get a waterproof case.

Thanks for all the help! The explanations are nice too. :) The smartphone I own is actually an iPhone 5 and I've taken some pretty okay photos with an iPhone, at least for the purposes of viewing on the phone. Still, it's been years since we've had an actual camera, and we no longer have a functioning one (even if we did, it'd be a 5+ year old p&s).

 

Does a $300 used (not refurbished) Canon Rebel XSi with kit lens seem like a good option? Yes, more than my original budget, but a little easier to justify in a DSLR than a p&s in my mind.

Yes, a very good option near your budget range.

 

Even then, the typical compact camera with a 1/2.3" sensor is 7 times larger in surface area as does the typical smartphone. Still a small sensor, but nowhere nearly as small as a cellphone.

http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/pictures#13

Your "typical" cell phone camera is outdated. The iPhone 5, for example, uses a 1/3.2" sensor. This year, some smart phones are being released with 1/2.3" sensors.

But even the 1/3.2" is not that much smaller than your basic p&s. As shown in the illustration in the link I posted, the basic 1/2.3 p&s is barely larger than a good smart phone camera.

I bought a Nikon s6500 prior to our 30 day trip to Europe this summer. Our main camera is a DSLR D7000. I got the very compact S6500 as a back up, as sometimes we just don't like lugging around the bigger camera. Well, after a month of use, inside museums, outdoors for scenic shots, etc. it performed very well. We turned off the flash, and the camera took great shots in low light. It has a great zoom, picture quality does go down at full zoom, so I rarely used that feature. I didn't have to charge the battery as much as I thought. We ended up leaving our DSLR in the safe during most of our touring. Size really does make a difference -- I can recommend this low price camera.

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

That brings me to another point: how difficult are DSLRs to lug around? Specifically the Rebels, which I believe I read are on the small end, as DSLRs go? If I were to bring just the TSI, the one lens (I don't have hundreds to spend on lenses as well at the moment), and maybe a spare SD card or two (I'm happy the TSi takes SD cards), how much more inconvenient is it than a compact point and shoot? I'm reading a lot of people that own DSLRs don't necessarily bring them on vacations, so is it counterintuitive to buy one specifically for a vacation?

We'd probably be bringing a backpack to every port anyways (for water bottles and stuff), so how much spare space is in a typical backpack meant for the camera?

Thanks again for all the help.

T

 

We'd probably be bringing a backpack to every port anyways (for water bottles and stuff), so how much spare space is in a typical backpack meant for the camera?

 

Thanks again for all the help.

For casual travel photos I have started carrying a Sony NEX camera. It has a larger sensor than the EOS Rebels and is about the same size as a large point and shoot like the Canon G11/12 or a small-sensor compact like the Nikon 1 series. I wanted to keep the quality high but unless I need the high frame rate or better balance for a long lens, I now leave the DSLR at home. You can pick up a NEX 3 for under $500 with an excellent 16-50 kit lens.

As for how much room in the backpack...none! I carry my camera cross-shoulder so it is easy to access when needed. Camera in bag = no photos! ;)

Dave

That brings me to another point: how difficult are DSLRs to lug around? Specifically the Rebels, which I believe I read are on the small end, as DSLRs go? If I were to bring just the TSI, the one lens (I don't have hundreds to spend on lenses as well at the moment), and maybe a spare SD card or two (I'm happy the TSi takes SD cards), how much more inconvenient is it than a compact point and shoot? I'm reading a lot of people that own DSLRs don't necessarily bring them on vacations, so is it counterintuitive to buy one specifically for a vacation?

 

We'd probably be bringing a backpack to every port anyways (for water bottles and stuff), so how much spare space is in a typical backpack meant for the camera?

 

Thanks again for all the help.

*If* photography is important to someone, then I don't understand the logic of leaving your best camera at home.

That said, I do understand freeing yourself of the weight, creating a different experience. I have done vacations exclusively with my RX100, as well as with a full dSLR kit, and it's a very different experience.

A dSLR, especially with just 1 lens, isn't really *bad* to carry around. Not like you'll blow out your back, or the weight will wear you down from walking. I often carry my dSLR AND several lenses.

That said, you do know you're carrying it. You want to have a camera bag with you. When you sit down for a meal, you need to be conscious of putting it aside, picking it up later. You're conscious of it as you walk and travel. It prevents you from always having 2 hands totally free.

A compact can be freeing, in the sense that it can sit in your pocket when you're not using it. It's no different than carrying your wallet or a phone. Where a dSLR does feel like carrying something "extra."

So size is definitely a factor. If you want the freedom to not carry anything at all -- just keep items in your pockets, then you need to go the compact route.

If you don't mind carrying a small bag that weight a couple pounds, combined with sometimes having a couple pounds hanging from a neck strap... a dSLR is very rewarding.

There is no right or wrong answer. I bought the RX100 because I was a bit tired of lugging around the larger dSLR. It produced such great results, that it re-ignited my general interest in photography.... getting me to upgrade my dSLR and lenses..... to the point where I now carry a dSLR kit very very often when I'm not working.

So ironically -- I bought the RX100 as a means to downsize, and it led me to upsize.

Speaking of which -- I looked up image quality on the Rebel xsi out of curiosity. The RX100 has the best rated image quality of any true compact camera. According to dxomark rating -- that makes it about a tie between the RX100 and the Rebel xsi. So there you go --- A 5-year-old dSLR gives you image quality similar to what you would get now from the top top top of the line compact camera. (and easily will surpass mid level compacts).

 

Typical cell phone sensor; 1/6" - 14x crop factor, 4sq mm sensor size.

 

Typical compact camera sensor 1/2.5" 6x crop factor, 25 sq mm sensor size.

The iphone 5, as with most better smart phones over the last couple years, has a 1/3.2" sensor, about 15mm....

While smaller than your typical point and shoot, not nearly such a dramatic size difference.

The Nokia Lumia 1020 has a sensor size of 1/1.5" -- Much much bigger than typical P&S cameras.

The Samsung Galaxy S4 zoom has a 1/2.3" sensor, same as typical P&S cameras.

Sony is expected to release a smart phone in the coming weeks with a sensor size somewhere between 1/2.3 and 1/1.6".

Really, low end P&S cameras with the standard 1/2.3" sensors are in trouble, as they can offer fewer and fewer advantages over smart phones, beyond greater optical zoom.

As a girl, I can't really fit ANYTHING in my pockets, phone, wallet, or (obviously) camera: according to most clothing manufacturers, women don't need to have convenient storage on their bodies and only want pockets for show. So I'll have to carry around SOME sort of bag, regardless. :p And as a college student, I'm used to carrying around a bag with a bit of weight. Is it harder/more inconvenient to take the DSLR out and just start shooting than it is with a p&s? Is there any reason I'd want to still bring my iPhone around as an equivalent of a low-end p&s if I had the DSLR? My mom's not too enthusiastic about carrying around (and potentially losing or damaging) our phones -especially hers as it's a work phone.

And I WOULD be interested in something like the RX100 for the convenience, but I DEFINITELY don't have $500 to spend on a camera: $300 is pushing it and supplementing what my mom would spend toward a camera with everything I'll earn between now and the cruise from my newly acquired job. Even then, it's going to take some time convincing her that paying that for a camera is worth it, when in her mind we're mostly trying to avoid risk to the iPhones and maybe get slightly better pictures (I was originally supposed to be looking in the $100-$150 range, but couldn't really find anything worth that cost to me, and now I've gone and doubled it).

As a girl, I can't really fit ANYTHING in my pockets, phone, wallet, or (obviously) camera: according to most clothing manufacturers, women don't need to have convenient storage on their bodies and only want pockets for show. So I'll have to carry around SOME sort of bag, regardless. :p And as a college student, I'm used to carrying around a bag with a bit of weight. Is it harder/more inconvenient to take the DSLR out and just start shooting than it is with a p&s? Is there any reason I'd want to still bring my iPhone around as an equivalent of a low-end p&s if I had the DSLR? My mom's not too enthusiastic about carrying around (and potentially losing or damaging) our phones -especially hers as it's a work phone.

 

And I WOULD be interested in something like the RX100 for the convenience, but I DEFINITELY don't have $500 to spend on a camera: $300 is pushing it and supplementing what my mom would spend toward a camera with everything I'll earn between now and the cruise from my newly acquired job. Even then, it's going to take some time convincing her that paying that for a camera is worth it, when in her mind we're mostly trying to avoid risk to the iPhones and maybe get slightly better pictures (I was originally supposed to be looking in the $100-$150 range, but couldn't really find anything worth that cost to me, and now I've gone and doubled it).

Depending on the camera, you can typically start up a dSLR faster than a point and shoot. With a word of warning -- a dSLR will only be fast as long as you use the optical viewfinder. If you try to use the LCD screen, it will slow it down immensely.

If you're used to carrying a purse, I don't think carrying a small dSLR is so bad.

We still carry out iphones -- first, because we like having a phone. But in terms of photography, my DW will sometimes snap a quick shot on her phone for instant facebooking. As opposed to the dSLR, where you wait till the end of the vacation and upload the pics.

In terms of the value of the RX100 -- while it isn't cheap... For a person who wants "dSLR quality" but something compact and without changing lenses, it's worth the price. It's about the same price as a new entry level dSLR/kit lens -- and the reality is, in many cases, it will out perform a basic entry level dSLR with kit lens.

That said, even an entry level dSLR has more potential as you upgrade lenses down the road. (on a dSLR, lenses mean more than the camera).

Yeah, I think it's probably pretty obvious that I'm pretty much sold on the XSi at this point. It seems like a lot of camera (and a totally acceptable lens) for $300, and far more versatile than the cheap p&s cameras they were after. And I'm pretty sure the kit lens has IS, which can only help. :P Now it's just a matter of convincing those I'm traveling with, but regardless of which camera we get I'll probably be the one taking 90% of the photos.

The iphone 5, as with most better smart phones over the last couple years, has a 1/3.2" sensor, about 15mm....

While smaller than your typical point and shoot, not nearly such a dramatic size difference.

If this is the Sony sensor the iPhone 5 is using, it seems the 8Mp sensor is a 1/4" sensor. The 1/3.06" sensor is a 13Mp sensor.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol68/pdf/sideview_vol68.pdf

Or perhaps this is not the Sony sensor the iPhone is using?

If it is, instead of 4 sq mm, the Sony 8Mp sensors are now 7 sq mm, so the typical compact camera is now only 4 times larger.

Still, iPhone sensors are larger than they once were - and perhaps they will become larger yet. But their popular form factor might have to change to accommodate a larger sensor, to possibly include a more restrictive lens as you know that the larger the sensor, the larger the lens has to be.

For that reason, It seems to me there is a finite wall in sensor size if apple wants to maintain the same form factor, but it almost seems they are headed towards becoming more camera than phone.

The future will certainly be most interesting.

I simply know the iPhone sensor is about 15mm, I don't know which Sony sensor it is.

Good smart phone cameras are rapidly catching up to basic point and shoots... With processors that surpass point and shoots. (Since a smart phone is basically a $500+ computer subsidized by a wireless company).